Firaxis and the Gross Misrepresentation of Non-Western History?

[AnaNg]

1. Actually, from what I know, the USSR won the Europe war single-handedly, while America basically won the Pacific war.

[...]

Oh, and I think I he was joking

I think the fact that in Europe it was a sizable war on multiple fronts with some strong internal resistance movements factored in to make it a bit more than "One nation won it single-handedly" but my history and knowledge of war tactics and factors may be screwed up (lord knows if you look at how I play Civ VI it must be!)

But yeah, pretty sure he was joking.

 

[dante alighieri]

SickCycle:

The fact that you're taking your cues from the US military isn't a source of confidence, considering that they're the same ones who precipitated this invasion of Iraq. That's even giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Quick nitpick, no biggie: The US Government...in other words, politicians....in other words the current administration....are the ones that you can say precipitated the situation in Iraq. Don't blame the military, they just follow the orders given to them by publicly elected officials.

Its not a big deal, but I do get a bit ruffled when the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines get the blame for things they did not cause.

 

[SickCycle]

i got a friend over there in recon.. he would much rather be over here in a bed lol

 

[Roxlimn]

But isn't the US President supposedly also the Commander-in-Chief? That would make him the head of the US military as well as the head of the civilian government, wouldn't it?

 

[mravioli]

But isn't the US President supposedly also the Commander-in-Chief? That would make him the head of the US military as well as the head of the civilian government, wouldn't it?

yupp, they outrank everyone in the military, but only 2 US presidents have ever been on the battlefield. i don't consider our pres a commander-in-chief since he has no military experience, just our 'president'

 

[Unconquered Sun]

yupp, they outrank everyone in the military, but only 2 US presidents have ever been on the battlefield. i don't consider our pres a commander-in-chief since he has no military experience, just our 'president'

Far more than two actually

 

[Roxlimn]

mravioli:

Alright. Please state your exact role in the government and the military since your input on what the US President's legal and military personas appear to have a bearing on his actual position and powers.

SickCycle:

I'll give a link to a foreigner that did exactly what I'm talking about, I also mentioned money, Osama for instance comes from a very wealthy family what I'm saying is if he has a problem he could use that money and connections within his family to make his point known, no matter what you think of americans, what anyone thinks, there is one universal truth about this country, the dollar rules all.

All your link shows me is an Englishman (similar cultural group) saying things that Americans already widely hold in their own minds. That's hardly surprising, nor does it demonstrate anything other than that Americans can accept their own suspicions being voiced back to them by a foreigner who's actually not that far removed from their own cultural identity.

If you want to illustrate the openness of the US, show me people from North Korea or Iran being taken seriously about reasonable (positive) views regarding their respective countries, preferably in the evening news. That would be something I can respect.

In fact, one of the best ways the US can wage war against Bin Laden is being given short shrift for I don't know what reason. You want to discredit him more than he already is in the Muslim world? Fight fire with fire. Appoint Muslim speakers from the US to decry his activities, preferably from positions of power, to give them credibility.

"Look I'm a totally virtuous Muslim living in the US! I LIKE IT HERE!"

That shouldn't be too hard, since the international Islamic authorities condemn terrorist activities.

 

[Bleahdom]

If china was so great why would Taiwan want to break away and seperate so badly...

The People's Republic of China and Republic of China are still technically at war, so whether Taiwan wishes for independence or not is a fairly moot point.
The PRC has no real claim over Taiwan purely because Taiwan is still the Republic of China, even if they have given up on their claims of owning the whole of China including Tibet, outer Mongolia and other regions it does not change their status of being effectively a government in exile.

During WWII the USA partially supported the communists and the democratic KMT in their fight against Japan, it wasn't until after the war when the communists finally won the delayed civil war that the USA decided, based on "popular" opinion that communism is evil and democracy is "unquestionably righteous" that all ties with "China" was severed. The KMT fled to Taiwan and still wanted to re-invade China with American assistance that was denied.
This caused a shift in focus to abandon a democratic China and focus on a Japan that was shifting to democracy.


Communist China being hostile to the Americans is not unreasonable in the slightest, given the weird relationship they had with each other. But most importantly, China has never "made it clear" that they wish to be hostile against the USA, all conflicts that have occurred since the created of the PRC have been over Taiwan and the US' initial breaking of ties with communist China to favour Taiwan (not that the communists would have been "that" friendly with anyone anyway).
So the idea of "Red China" being a huge threat that want to take over the world and set America burning has always been a one-sided view based on communism being evil.

Though hasn't this thread gone rather off-topic and worthy of a lock?

 

[mravioli]

mravioli:

Alright. Please state your exact role in the government and the military since your input on what the US President's legal and military personas appear to have a bearing on his actual position and powers.

Did i strike a nerve there?

legal resident of the US, i guess. Oh, and excuse me about the no military experience statement, he flew F-102s in the Texas Air National Guard and became a lieutenant, but never went on into Vietnam.

http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9232768
http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html

Though hasn't this thread gone rather off-topic and worthy of a lock?

I think so, too.

BTW, if the US wants to end communism so much, why do we continue to trade with them?

 

[Roxlimn]

mravioli:

Did i strike a nerve there?

legal resident of the US, i guess. Oh, and excuse me about the no military experience statement, he flew F-102s in the Texas Air National Guard and became a lieutenant, but never went on into Vietnam.

Nope. If you're going to make one-sided pronouncements of fact, it helps if you actually have something to back it up when someone like me posits an opposite take.

Whether or not you "consider" the US president the Commander-in-Chief seems to have no bearing whatsoever, as far as I understand the military authority and power extended to legal residents of the US. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The president's past military experience or lack of it does not impact his actual position of authority in the military. He is the Commander-in-Chief, the Joint Chiefs and all the military ultimately report to him. Right?

BTW, if the US wants to end communism so much, why do we continue to trade with them?

More to the point, if China wants to attack the US so badly, why is it scrambling to get in bed with it?

It's simply not true, that's why.

China isn't hostile to the US, it's not a totalitarian nightmare to live in, its people aren't constantly cowering in fear in a gestapo dystopia.

THIS is why Firaxis makes Civ so grossly wrong. Americans are the audience, and they're convinced that their opinions and historical perspective are the only right ones. This very thread contains numerous examples that support this assertion. Americans think they're right, they don't want to be disabused of their notions. Since they're the target market, give them what they want, yeah?

 

[Bleahdom]

mravioli:THIS is why Firaxis makes Civ so grossly wrong. Americans are the audience, and they're convinced that their opinions and historical perspective are the only right ones. This very thread contains numerous examples that support this assertion. Americans think they're right, they don't want to be disabused of their notions. Since they're the target market, give them what they want, yeah?

To be honest with you, Civ4 isn't "that" bad when it comes to being historically accurate. Choosing leaders based on how famous (or infamous) they are is perfectly normal when you consider the fact that this is a game.

What really irks me however is that they have switched to forcing civs in-game to have specific traits that are completely stereotypical without any regard for reality. Qin Shi Huang being protective? Ramesses II and Hatshepsut being spiritual? Imposing their ideas on an entire civ because it matches popular sentiments makes it harder for people to choose a leader based on who they were in life.

 

[Breunor]

To be honest with you, Civ4 isn't "that" bad when it comes to being historically accurate. Choosing leaders based on how famous (or infamous) they are is perfectly normal when you consider the fact that this is a game.

What really irks me however is that they have switched to forcing civs in-game to have specific traits that are completely stereotypical without any regard for reality. Qin Shi Huang being protective? Ramesses II and Hatshepsut being spiritual? Imposing their ideas on an entire civ because it matches popular sentiments makes it harder for people to choose a leader based on who they were in life.

I think Rameses and Hatti shoudl be Spiritual since they ARE Egypt and had to work in an unbelievably religious society. Remember, Herodotus said the Egyptians were 'the most religious people in the world.' Individuals can disagree, but I think its at least a reasonable choice.

Totally agree with Qin Shi Huang, though.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

I think Rameses and Hatti shoudl be Spiritual since they ARE Egypt and had to work in an unbelievably religious society. Remember, Herodotus said the Egyptians were 'the most religious people in the world.' Individuals can disagree, but I think its at least a reasonable choice.

Totally agree with Qin Shi Huang, though.

Best wishes,

Breunor

It is quite fine for him to be Ind or Pro, IMO. Both....is defining him by the Great Wall, which is like defining George Washington by having Washington D.C. named after him. He really should have Agg or Imp with Ind or Pro....

Mao is just completely and utterly wrong. He could have cared less about anything but his own power and millions starved during rule(not exactly promoting population growth there....). Imp/Org fits him way better, IMO....

 

[gettingfat]

It is quite fine for him to be Ind or Pro, IMO. Both....is defining him by the Great Wall, which is like defining George Washington by having Washington D.C. named after him. He really should have Agg or Imp with Ind or Pro....

Mao is just completely and utterly wrong. He could have cared less about anything but his own power and millions starved during rule(not exactly promoting population growth there....). Imp/Org fits him way better, IMO....

Qin essentially kicked the nomadic tribes' axx by attacking them. But at that time it's technically and financially unrealistic for an agriculture-based civ to permanently occupy a large stretch of "wastelands" suitable only for animal husbandry, so the only reasonable choice was to build a SDI, oops sorry, a great wall to minimize the need for troops for such a long border, and ask the nomadic tribes to pay tribute. He did the same on the south west China, but because those lands are suitable for farming, he kept them and became part of his empire. I call this imperialistic and realistic, not protective, as Qin was always the dominant player in the whole affair.

If at that point Europe was right beside Qin's empire and easily accessible, I bet with Qin's personality, attacking the Romans would be the only logical choice for him as it would fulfill his grand dream to be the "One" in the world (and with the technical advantages and incredible larger army size, he'd have a good chance to win the war). I wonder if people would still label him "protective" any more.

 

[snipafist]

It is quite fine for him to be Ind or Pro, IMO. Both....is defining him by the Great Wall, which is like defining George Washington by having Washington D.C. named after him. He really should have Agg or Imp with Ind or Pro....

I think Qin is all right. Barring anyone else (Taizong, please) to represent "traditional" Chinese civilization, he's stuck with Protective to emphasize the Chinese love of building walls and using missile weapons. It makes no sense for Mao though.

Mao is just completely and utterly wrong. He could have cared less about anything but his own power and millions starved during rule(not exactly promoting population growth there....). Imp/Org fits him way better, IMO....

It's obvious that you've never actually studied Mao, so I'd leave well enough alone. The millions starving essentially comes from a huge bureaucratic catastrophe (the Great Leap Forward) mixed with a terrible drought. Why would Mao deliberately starve his power base (the peasantry) to death when they were his lever to use against other entrenched party bureaucrats? Even operating off of the "Mao was a megalomaniac only interested in his own power and nothing else" stereotype, that doesn't make any sense at all. If I was going to assign Mao traits, I liked the old Philosophical/Organized combination (organized fits communist leaders well, and Mao was a premier communist thinker). Alternatively, Charismatic and Organized would fit nicely. Expansive not so much, and definitely not protective.

 

[SickCycle]

If non western countries were so great we'd be playing your games...

Excluding the fabulous democratic nation and trusted ally Japan of course they make way cool stuff which is in large part b/c we rebuilt the country and they haven't had to even worry about military or war for awhile now heh..

Lets face facts.. the real life civ is already in the bag lolol, if the U.S. doesn't win it'll be the European Union.. if they can ever really pull that off which I doubt.

Either way, the west wins the east .. does whatever

... I love being a winner, feels great!

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, the truth is the world is (currently) dominated by the West. Even if you disagree and say "no, the West doesn't have the best X, Y or Z", you ignore the fact that the West largely defines what it means to win the game. Economic wealth, influence over the rest of the world's politics... two big signs of victory.

It's not a surprise that the West gets to divide Europe into 20 different civilizations, while representing South Asia with a single civilization. But just because it's expected, it doesn't mean that it's accurate or fair.

 

[cybrxkhan]

^agree with you 100%, dh_epic. I think the westernicentralism can exist, but can also be downplayed a bit too.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

I think Qin is all right. Barring anyone else (Taizong, please) to represent "traditional" Chinese civilization, he's stuck with Protective to emphasize the Chinese love of building walls and using missile weapons. It makes no sense for Mao though.


It's obvious that you've never actually studied Mao, so I'd leave well enough alone. The millions starving essentially comes from a huge bureaucratic catastrophe (the Great Leap Forward) mixed with a terrible drought. Why would Mao deliberately starve his power base (the peasantry) to death when they were his lever to use against other entrenched party bureaucrats? Even operating off of the "Mao was a megalomaniac only interested in his own power and nothing else" stereotype, that doesn't make any sense at all. If I was going to assign Mao traits, I liked the old Philosophical/Organized combination (organized fits communist leaders well, and Mao was a premier communist thinker). Alternatively, Charismatic and Organized would fit nicely. Expansive not so much, and definitely not protective.

Chinese civilization wasn't protective or isolationist. It was imperialistic and domineering, and continually sought the submission of surrounding peoples, and began every and any diplomatic exchange by demanding tribute(pretty much.) Their favorite past-time was interfering in Korean affairs. In other words, it was driven by a profound ethnocentrism and a desire to bring barbarians into the light of Chinese civilization. You(and Firaxis) are defining China by the Qing. That's like defining France by World War 2.

As for Mao, it is you who needs to do research. Mao is so masterful a propagandist that the truth isn't well-known even today. But that is a moot point, because I cannot see how you can argue a leader who presided over a time of famine and failed industrialization can qualify for Expansive. Or how Protective even fits....

 

[snipafist]

Lance, when one has done 6 years of college-level research into modern Chinese history, one is entitled to their opinion regarding Mao. Waving complicating variables away as "commie propaganda" because it doesn't fit a simplistic worldview is more than a little ridiculous. The Great Leap was a colossal failure, but the regionally self-contained (rather than nationalized, as the Soviets did) industrialization of the Mao period set the foundations for China's current economic growth. Mao also provided over a booming Chinese population, an increased standard of living, vastly increased literacy, the (actual) end of concubineage and foot-binding, and increased status for women altogether. That's not a bad record, all things considered. Sure, he could've stood to have been democratic, but he did amazingly well with what he was given to work with. Another thing completely lacking from modern discussions of Mao is whether a pre-modern society could be expected to behave democratically anyways. The western world had the advantage of legal traditions, industrialization, state-building, and widespread literacy campaigns to set a strong foundation for what would be a democratic tradition. Most of the rest of the world did not have this yet, and as such their leaders and government styles reflect that. Is it fair to hold countries that were incapable of supporting a democratic government in contempt for not being democratic? In this regard, I think Maoist China gets a pass, but post-Mao China is sorely lacking.

China loved pushing its vassals around, it's true. But they rarely bothered conquering them. How many times has China conquered Korea? Or Japan? It's gotten into Northern Vietnam, but that's about as far as it goes. It may have discovered America, but never really considered expanding into it. Pre-modern China is renowned for its wall-building (not just the Great Wall, but walls around cities, houses, everywhere) and heavy reliance on missile units in war (with a repeating crossbow, I cannot blame them). This is represented by the protective trait. I don't think it fits modern China (Mao-led) at all, and I don't think it particularly fits Qin's personality, but he's the only representative of "classical" China that we've got.